athing the death that was
omnipresent in Rome that summer, the pestilential fever which had
smitten Cardinal Giovanni Borgia (Seniore) on the 1st of that month, and
of which men were dying every day in the most alarming numbers.

On the morning of Saturday 12, Burchard tells us, the Pope felt ill, and
that evening he was taken with fever. On the 15th Burchard records that
he was bled, thirteen ounces of blood being taken from him. It relieved
him somewhat, and, seeking distraction, he bade some of the cardinals to
come and sit by his bed and play at cards.

Meanwhile, Cesare was also stricken, and in him the fever raged so
fierce and violently that he had himself immersed to the neck in a huge
jar of ice-cold water--a drastic treatment in consequence of which he
came to shed all the skin from his body.

On the 17th the Pope was much worse, and on the 18th, the end being at
hand, he was confessed by the Bishop of Culm, who administered Extreme
Unction, and that evening he died.

That, beyond all manner of question, is the true story of the passing of
Alexander VI, as revealed by the Diarium of Burchard, by the testimony
of the physician who attended him, and by the dispatches of the
Venetian, Ferrarese, and Florentine ambassadors. At this time of day it
is accepted by all serious historians, compelled to it by the burden of
evidence.

The ambassador of Ferrara had written to Duke Ercole, on August 14, that
it was no wonder the Pope and the duke were ill, as nearly everybody in
Rome was ill as a consequence of the bad air ("Per la mala condictione
de aere").

Cardinal Soderini was also stricken with the fever, whilst Corneto was
taken ill on the day after that supper-party, and, like Cesare, is said
to have shed all the skin of his body before he recovered.

Even Villari and Gregorovius, so unrestrained when writing of the
Borgias, discard the extraordinary and utterly unwarranted stories of
Guicciardini, Giovio, and Bembo, which will presently be considered.
Gregorovius does this with a reluctance that is almost amusing, and
with many a fond, regretful, backward glance--so very apparent in his
manner--at the tale of villainy as told by Guicciardini and the others,
which the German scholar would have adopted but that he dared not for
his credit's sake. This is not stated on mere assumption. It is obvious
to any one who reads Gregorovius's histories.

Burchard tells us--as certainly matter for comment--that, durin